Could Status Anxiety Push the US and China Toward Conflict?

China has won recognition from the United States as a peer before building the alliances and institutions to justify that status, and that gap is where status anxiety could turn rivalry into conflict.

When President Xi Jinping sat down to a state dinner at the White House in September, the visit produced a two-month truce extension to January 10 and favorable tariff treatment for $30 billion of goods in each direction, though Taiwan, rare earths, and chip restrictions remained unresolved. The visit followed a May summit in China and a pledge to build a constructive relationship of strategic stability. Yet by early November, a $14 billion Taiwan arms package that President Donald Trump had put on hold after the May meeting still awaited his approval, and Taiwanese officials were warning that it could slip into 2027. The visit was heavy on symbolism but light on substance, an imbalance that exposes a mechanism worth watching.

That mechanism is status anxiety, which is the fear of losing or failing to gain the rank that power is supposed to command. In US-China relations, it now works through recognition that runs ahead of capability. How that mismatch resolves will shape whether the two powers drift into what Graham Allison calls Thucydides’s Trap (Allison, 2017, p. xvii).

 Status Anxiety and Thucydides’s Trap

In 2010, Deborah Welch Larson and Alexei Shevchenko observed that relative status had been largely overlooked by both neorealism, with its focus on material power, and liberalism, with its focus on norms and institutions. Drawing on social identity theory, they identified three strategies open to a state seeking higher status. It can rival the dominant powers and seek admission to their clubs, compete with them on the dimensions that define their superiority, or seek preeminence in a different field. Status is positional and cannot be claimed unilaterally, because the dominant group must accept it, and a state whose claim is rebuffed tends to react competitively, sometimes angrily, over injuries to honor. The dominant group’s outlook matters too, since a higher-status group is more generous toward others’ achievements when it regards its own position as legitimate and secure.

Allison describes two sides of the same dynamic, in which a rising state develops an enhanced sense of itself and of its entitlement to recognition and respect while an established power feels growing fear and insecurity as it faces intimations of decline (Allison, 2017, p. 44). Status anxiety thus takes two forms, one for the riser and one for the ruler, and each can feed the other.

Thucydides traced the Peloponnesian War to the growth of Athenian power and the fear it created in Sparta, and he had the Athenians cite honor alongside fear and interest as the motives for their empire (Thucydides, 2004, 1.23.6, 1.75.3). Allison found that twelve of sixteen cases in which a rising power challenged a ruling one ended in war, and he treats honor as a driver alongside interest and fear (Allison, 2017, pp. xvii, 39). The cases show status anxiety on both sides, as France in 1870 saw itself sliding to the second rank, and Germany built a navy to earn Britain’s respect, only to frighten British leaders.

The framework has critics, among them Michael Beckley, who accepts that hegemonic rivalry has produced catastrophe roughly every forty years but argues that unipolarity rules out comparable great-power competition (Beckley, 2018, pp. 3, 135). William Wohlforth argued in 1999 that a clear and comprehensive power advantage keeps the hierarchy stable. Writing with Stephen Brooks in 2016, he later judged that China had reached only the “emerging potential superpower” level, with the economic capacity to bid for superpower status but not yet the technology.

Wohlforth’s own account, however, names the conditions under which that stability fails. Conflict occurs when leader and challenger disagree about their relative power, which is most likely when the gap is small, or when the challenger overtakes the leader in some elements of power while lagging in others and the two disagree about which elements matter. The US-China relationship fits that description, since China leads in production while the United States leads in alliances and power projection. Wohlforth also expected second-tier powers to keep caring about status, which leaves room for status anxiety even inside a unipolar order.

Recognition Ahead of Capability

Recognition and capability operate on different timelines. Recognition, the formal acknowledgment of status conferred through diplomacy, advances through ceremonies and gestures, while capability develops more slowly through the buildup of ships, alliances, and institutions. Deference, other states’ willingness to accept a power’s rank and adjust to its preferences, is what turns capability into authority. Writing in 2017, David Lake describes authority as a right to rule that subordinates recognize, the quality that separates legitimate power from coercion, and he sees legitimacy as the main barrier to any Chinese-led hierarchy.

History shows that the clocks can align, as when Britain avoided war with the United States by accepting American supremacy only after American GDP had passed its own, so recognition followed capability. The Cold War rivals built trust through arms control and détente only after the Soviet Union had reached rough strategic parity with the United States. Scholars of status argue that summits, strategic dialogues, and partnerships can satisfy a rising state and secure its cooperation. These cases support that view, but only where recognition tracks capability.

The 2026 summits reversed that order from the start, and in May the United States appeared to concede equality and parity to China through the formula of constructive strategic stability, as Swati Arun of the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses argued. September reinforced that recognition with a state dinner, a new Board of Trade and Board of Investment, and confirmed meetings at the APEC summit in Shenzhen in November and the G20 summit in Miami in December, four presidential encounters in a single year. Chinese leaders read the moment the same way, with President Xi calling an exchange of presidential visits within half a year unprecedented and Foreign Minister Wang Yi defining the new “reciprocity” to mean that the two countries are equal and that neither side stands above the other. Yet the two governments issued separate readouts, and the disputes over Taiwan, rare earths, and chips stayed open. In late October, negotiators were still racing to convert limited economic outcomes into concrete packages, with national security controls kept off the table. A law firm review found that neither side had scaled back its use of such controls.

China’s Rank and America’s Concession

Yong Deng, who documented China’s long search for recognition, traced China’s self-assessed status to a peak in 1997 and 1998, after the two governments declared a strategic partnership and exchanged summits, and he cited Chinese analysts who complained of isolation and exclusion from the major-power coordination of the G-8 (Deng, 2008, pp. 34, 36). China’s strategy, he argued, sought to pair material power with international recognition while avoiding the hostile balancing of a classic power transition (Deng, 2008, p. 40). Larson and Shevchenko found that China shifted from competition toward social creativity, seeking recognition as a responsible great power. They also found that its premature assertiveness alarmed East Asia, a reminder that pushing for faster recognition can raise the very anxiety it aims to lower. Wang Yi’s language shows that China still frames the relationship in terms of rank.

China’s capability is substantial, and a leaked 2023 US Navy intelligence slide put its shipbuilding capacity, measured in tonnage, at roughly 232 times America’s. But the capability that converts into authority rests on alliances, projection, and legitimacy. The Congressional Research Service counts at least 128 American bases in at least 51 countries, while China’s only formal treaty ally is North Korea, and China has implied that treaty would lapse if North Korea started a war. Brooks and Wohlforth explain why economic weight converts slowly into superpower capability, noting that turning economic capacity into military power has grown harder, and China’s technological level remains much lower. China’s status, in short, has outrun the network that would justify it.

The United States has paid for this recognition with a concession, keeping a $14 billion Taiwan arms package on hold since May while retaining its technology controls. As of early November, the package remained unapproved, even though it includes Patriot missiles, a command-and-control system, and a radar system central to Taiwan’s air defense plans. Democratic control of both houses of Congress after the November 3 midterm elections is expected to raise pressure on the White House to release it. President Trump called the package “a very good negotiating chip.” Other officials have offered other reasons, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio pointed to the need to balance Taiwan’s request against broader needs, and a Navy official told senators in May that the Pentagon was pausing certain foreign military sales to secure munitions for the Iran war.

The truce also protects American access to Chinese rare earths, a dependence that Brookings analysts say the United States has yet to escape. Allison notes that a ruling power’s fears fuel misperception (Allison, 2017, p. 39), and if a secure higher-status group is more generous, American generosity should fade once US leaders begin to doubt their own position. The technology controls fit the pattern of an anxious ruling power guarding its rank, though they also serve plain military advantage. On the American side, the evidence for status anxiety is real but not conclusive.

Two Ways the Mismatch Ends

This mismatch could lead to conflict through two possible pathways. The first is reversal. If the United States withdraws its recognition and its Taiwan concession, China will read the move as a slight to a status it now expects, the kind of entitlement to respect that Allison associates with rising powers (Allison, 2017, p. 44). The midterm results make that path more plausible, since a Democratic Congress is expected to press President Trump to release the Taiwan package, a move China treats as a red line and one analysts warn would strain the new formula of mutual respect and equality. The second is overreach, in which China expects deference that US technology controls deny and the gap widens from the other side. President Xi has already pressed for more, urging President Trump to adhere to the “correct position” of opposing Taiwan independence, which suggests that China treats recognition as groundwork for deference.

The ambiguity is itself a vulnerability, since the danger lies less in any decision on the arms package than in the fact that the concession sits on the table at all. Either path would turn a gap between status and capability into fear on both sides.

A material reading of the same facts is available, since rare earths and advanced chips give each side reason to fear the other’s leverage, whatever its rank. But the sequence of events resists that reading, because the two governments exchanged symbolic goods first and left the material disputes for later, each treating ceremony as valuable enough to trade. A purely material fear would have led both sides to demand verifiable concessions on controls before granting symbolic rewards. The pattern fits a confident ruler and an anxious riser, in which the United States offered ceremony because it felt secure enough to give it away, while China valued it because its rank remains in question. The two motives reinforce each other, and recognition has so far eased material fear without resolving it.

A second alternative is personal, transactional diplomacy, since President Trump treats the arms package as a bargaining chip, and the munitions strain from the Iran war gives the delay a practical rationale. But dealmaking explains why the United States would hold the package; it does not explain why China prizes the ceremony, or why Wang Yi framed the outcome in terms of equality and rank. Transactional logic may set the American side of the exchange, but status sets its price. A concession made for transactional reasons can still create status expectations that are costly to reverse.

The Test Ahead

Sparta’s fear followed the real growth of Athenian power. The Spartans voted for war not only because they feared that growth (Thucydides, 2004, 1.88), but also because Athenian encroachment on their alliance had become intolerable (Thucydides, 2004, 1.118.2). Athens, for its part, defended its empire by claiming to be worthy of its power, a claim about status as much as strength (Thucydides, 2004, 1.76.2).

The next tests come quickly and include APEC in Shenzhen on November 18 and 19, where China is also discussing a first trilateral meeting with President Trump and President Vladimir Putin; the G20 in Miami on December 14 and 15; and the expiry of the truce on January 10. The new Boards give recognition an institutional anchor that ceremony alone lacks, with deputies expected to meet at least quarterly. The decision on the Taiwan package will show whether recognition can be reversed at will. Allison notes that the four cases that avoided war did so through huge, painful adjustments by challenger and challenged alike (Allison, 2017, p. xvii). For the United States, that means pacing recognition with the controls it intends to keep. For China, it means accepting that ceremony delivers status faster than it delivers the alliances on which deference rests.

Power shifts do not become wars on their own; they pass through perceptions of rank. Recognition granted early and withdrawn late is the surest way to turn a courtesy into a grievance. How fast recognition is extended, and how easily it can be taken back, will matter as much as how generous it is.

References

Agence France-Presse (2026) “What’s holding up Washington’s $14 bn arms sale to Taiwan?” France 24. Available at: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20261022-what-s-holding-up-washington-s-14-bn-arms-sale-to-taiwan.

Allison, G. (2017) Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Available at: https://archive.org/details/destinedforwarca0000alli_p4c4.

Arun, S. (2026) “Xi–Trump summit: The limits of transactional diplomacy,” Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Available at: https://idsa.in/publisher/issuebrief/xi-trump-summit-the-limits-of-transactional-diplomacy.

The Atlas News (2026) “Different narratives collide on U.S. arms package for Taiwan,” The Atlas News. Available at: https://www.theatlasnews.com/different-narratives-collide-on-u-s-arms-package-for-taiwan/.

Beckley, M. (2018) Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World’s Sole Superpower. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501724794.

Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (n.d.) “Thucydides’s Trap case file,” Belfer Center. Available at: https://www.belfercenter.org/programs/thucydidess-trap/thucydidess-trap-case-file.

Blanchard, B. (2026) “Chinese defence ministry urges ‘extreme caution’ over arms sales to Taiwan ahead of Trump-Xi summit,” Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/taiwan-thanks-us-its-support-ahead-trump-xi-summit-2026-09-24.

Brar, A. (2026) “Asia Communique briefing,” Asia Communique. Available at: https://www.asiacommunique.com/p/asia-communique-briefing.

Brooks, S.G. and Wohlforth, W.C. (2016) “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers in the Twenty-first Century: China’s Rise and the Fate of America’s Global Position,” International Security, 40(3), pp. 7–53. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00225.

ChinaFile (2026) “What actually happened at the Xi-Trump summit,” ChinaFile. Available at: https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/what-actually-happened-xi-trump-summit.

CNBC (2026) “Trump-Xi summit analysis: ‘Tangible outcomes’ needed for U.S.-China truce to hold,” CNBC. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/28/trump-xi-summit-tangible-outcomes-us-china-truce.html.

Deng, Y. (2008) China’s Struggle for Status: The Realignment of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790768.

Fong, C. (2024) “The China-North Korea relationship,” Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/china-north-korea-relationship.

G20 Miami 2026 (n.d.) “Events calendar,” G20. Available at: https://g20.org/events-calendar/.

Glaser, B.S. (2026) “A Trump-Xi summit scorecard,” German Marshall Fund of the United States. Available at: https://www.gmfus.org/news/trump-xi-summit-scorecard.

Hass, R., Czin, J. and Chan, K. (2026) “What’s next for US-China relations after Xi Jinping’s state visit?” Brookings Institution. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/whats-next-for-us-china-relations-after-xi-jinpings-state-visit/.

Kagan, E.D., Lin, B., Christensen, T.J. et al. (2026) “Takeaways from the Trump-Xi White House summit,” Center for Strategic and International Studies. Available at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/takeaways-trump-xi-white-house-summit.

Lake, D.A. (2017) “Domination, Authority, and the Forms of Chinese Power,” Chinese Journal of International Politics, 10(4), pp. 357–382. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pox012.

Larson, D.W. and Shevchenko, A. (2010) “Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to U.S. Primacy,” International Security, 34(4), pp. 63–95. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2010.34.4.63.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China (2026) “President Xi Jinping holds talks with US President Donald J. Trump,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. Available at: https://ir.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zyxw/202609/t20260925_12031181.htm.

Nicastro, L.A. and Tilghman, A. (2024) “U.S. Overseas Basing: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, R48123. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48123/R48123.2.pdf.

Nikkei Asia (2026) “Trump-Xi summit: How the Chinese leader’s trip to Washington unfolded,” Nikkei Asia. Available at: https://asia.nikkei.com/spotlight/trump-xi-summit/trump-xi-summit-how-the-chinese-leader-s-trip-to-washington-unfolded.

Politico Europe (2026) “Talks underway for Trump-Xi-Putin meeting, China says,” Politico Europe. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/talks-underway-donald-trump-xi-jinping-vladimir-putin-meeting-china-says/.

Reuters (2026) “Taiwan sees continued US arms sale support after midterm election,” Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/taiwan-sees-continued-us-arms-sale-support-after-midterm-election-2026-11-05/.

Reuters (2026) “Trump’s political humbling signals short-term gain, long-term pain for China,” Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trumps-political-humbling-signals-short-term-gain-long-term-pain-china-2026-11-05/.

Sacks, D. (2026) “The limits of Trump and Xi’s photo-op summit,” Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/articles/the-limits-of-trump-and-xis-photo-op-summit.

The Straits Times (2026) “Greater pressure to speed up arms sales to Taiwan possible after midterms,” The Straits Times. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/greater-pressure-to-speed-up-arms-sales-to-taiwan-possible-after-midterms.

Tan, K.W.K. (2023) “China has the capacity to build PLA combat ships at 200 times the rate that the US can, per leaked US Navy intelligence,” Business Insider. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-chinas-shipbuilding-capacity-200-times-greater-than-us-2023-9.

Thucydides (2004) The History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by R. Crawley. Project Gutenberg. Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7142.

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (2026) “U.S.-China Washington summit 2026: Key outcomes and unfinished business,” Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Available at: https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/us-china-washington-summit-2026-key-outcomes-and-unfinished-business.html.

Wohlforth, W.C. (1999) “The Stability of a Unipolar World,” International Security, 24(1), pp. 5–41. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560031.

Xinhua (2025) “2026 APEC meeting to be held on Nov. 18-19 in China’s Shenzhen,” Xinhua. Available at: https://english.news.cn/20251212/e7e7229fe5e642c39dd2edc57acd9b57/c.html.

Xinhua (2026) “Xi’s state visit leads to new progress in constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability: Chinese FM,” Xinhua. Available at: https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202609/27/content_WS6ab8696ac6d00ca5f9a0d7d9.html.